Talk:Prison Creature (Mortis)
Deletion This article will be deleted due to the fact that this "character" is not a separate character this is the Son of Mortis. The creature is the Son who already has a page which features all the information here so no information will actually be lost anyway. To give this its own article is not an organized policy in my, and likely many others, opinion. To have this on its own would be like having a Palpatine page separate from Darth Sidious, it just not a good trend to tolerate making articles of little significance. All the information here appears on the Son' page and thus no mentions or information will be lost in the process. Darkseid253 11:06, April 19, 2012 (UTC) *It's not a separate character, but it is most definitely a separate species that the Son appeared as. Therefore, it shall stay. Bane7670 01:43, April 20, 2012 (UTC) *It's not a species it's a form he changed into. Prove that its a race when no source saw it important enough to even suggest it was a unique creature and perhaps I'll believe. But as you didn't clearly read no information is lost. A shape shifter form isn't a species. Respond with sources or it goes(the page of which the writting present is 100% on the Son's page).Darkseid253 03:26, April 20, 2012 (UTC) *Shape shifters cannot take the form of creatures that do not exist. The Son might be an exeption, but that seriously hints that it is indeed the representation of a unique specie. Also, could you give me a source that proves it isn't a representation of an existing animal? The prison creature also had many abilities that the Son didn't have, suggesting a unique specie. Alot of true facts on this wiki are not based on sources, but on a close look and analysis of existing episode. For many subjects, we are the only reference, but that doesn't mean the information isn't real. Also, could you give me a link leading to a proof that this creature is not a representation of a specie? On a debate like this one, the argument you used is completely reversial. 14:44, April 21, 2012 (UTC) *And even if it was proven it isn't a seperate specie, it should still have a page of its own, or else, following your logic, we should fusion the pages Clone Trooper armor phase 1 and Clone Trooper armor phase 2, since they are both the same clone trooper armor, just in different forms. And we should put all the pages about specialized clones (like the ARC trooper page), in the page about Clone Troopers, since they are, after all, all clones, just with different tasks and armors, in the same way that the prison creature is the son, but in another shape, and with different powers. 14:55, April 21, 2012 (UTC) You're idea that the prison creature which is the Son that is him has different powers is laughable since well he is the Son. Next since you're not aware of this basic logic premense you can not prove a negatitive ie that sometihng does not happen only that something else does. So since this isn't named anywhere as being based off a race of anythings there is no reason to suspect it is in any way based off an existing species. The Daughter can turn into a griffin however there has never been in any star wars media any depiction of a speices of griffins in the galaxy. So being all powerful force beings they obviously can morph into any type of shape they choose. BTW it's species not specie Phase one armor is not phase two armor, these are inanimate objects they can not morph like a shape shifter. The prison creature is the Son. So by your foolish thinking we should have Dooku with a beard on a different page than Dooku without a a beard. It is still Dooku even though he looks different. What you are declaring is that the prison creature must be a separate species of its own. You are declaring this is a species. I am saying that this does not have to be the case, it is possible the prison creature is not based on an existing race based on the fact that the Son also turns into a gargoyle, there have been no gargoyle species in star wars media. The Daughter can become a griffin, there is no griffin species in star wars. So if this is a species which species does it belong to? If it is a species as you declare surely you can answer this? But as we all know you have no information by which to answer that question. Keep in mind characters in the star wars universe are capable of thinking up mythological and other nonliving creatures form their respective imaginations. So why couldn't the Son have used his own imagination to have created this form, surely as an all power force being this would not be far outside his capabilities? Are the living gargoyles in the star wars universe, anywhere? How about griffins? Any griffin species?Darkseid253 02:43, April 22, 2012 (UTC) When I say that his has different powwers than the Son, I mean that under that form, the Son can do things he can't do under his basic form, like poisoning. He can make up a creature, but can't create powers out of nothing, so it makes me think it is a unique specie. So please, wait a bit before calling my logic foolish. I would greatly appreciate if you could make a point without insulting me, please. It's called respect. But otherwise, I think you are right, made some good point, this page should be deleted. But the prison creature should, of course, be mentionned inside the Son's page. 14:19, April 22, 2012 (UTC)